TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Round Bars, CTD Bars etc. and were working under the Compounded Levy Scheme during the period 1-4-1999 to 31-3-2000. As per provisions of the Compounded Levy Scheme their Annual Production Capacity was determined as 3148.450 MT and duty liability @ Rs. 39,356.00/- per month. This duty liability was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty liability by the Commissioner @ Rs. 60,597/- per month the appellants filed a refund claim in respect of Rs. 2,73,108/- paid by them in excess as per the original order of the Commissioner. The refund claim was sanctioned by the lower authority but on Revenue s appeal the order of sanctioning refund was set aside on grounds of unjust enrichment. 2. The ld. Advocate for the appellants su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or there is any agreement between the seller and the buyer having any understanding for payment and charging excise duty separately in the sales bills. In view of this clearcut certificate it cannot be considered that they have passed on the incidence of duty to their customers. It was further submitted that in any case the differential duty was deposited subsequently and therefore the question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of Section 12B that the incidence of duty has been passed on. The plea that the duty was paid subsequently is also not relevant because duty was initially determined @ Rs. 39,356/- per month but the appellants on their own paid duty at much lesser rate of Rs. 12,150/- per month for about six months after which they started paying the differential duty also. Once some duty is payable under C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
